BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Outside attack too strong ?

Outside attack too strong ?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
125704.45 in reply to 125704.22
Date: 12/31/2009 05:00:08
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
If you don't see that the limited tactical choice is probably the weakest point (draft apart) of BB, I think this game has got a problem. Offenses like low post, patient and base offense are basically useless. There is practically only one choice if you want to rely on your big men and that's not good. Moreover, imho m2m and 3-2 work too well against look inside (in most cases much better than the 2-3 defense, which was "designed" for that).

Here is an extreme example (but I have seen many others alike)
(17979586)
How is it possible that against such a bad defensive choice there is such a pure shot distribution??? (the offensive flow ain't bad)
Wouldn't be more reasonable is the big men attempted more lower quality shots instead of shooting only when they got a high percentage shot? Or the problem here is that big men were not even able to get the ball?
I am fine with 1-3-1 defense causing more TO, but not with forcing too many low quality outside shots of teams with an inside focus.

Last edited by Newton07 at 12/31/2009 05:02:29

This Post:
00
125704.46 in reply to 125704.37
Date: 12/31/2009 06:17:34
Overall Posts Rated:
224224
Lets talk about real game then. Whats the last great PG that has won a ring? Magic.


I'm probably going to be banned and cast into the fires of hell, but Isiah won two since Magic.

What, no love for Rondo? ;)

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
From: PIm

This Post:
00
125704.47 in reply to 125704.45
Date: 12/31/2009 07:29:55
Overall Posts Rated:
6262

Here is an extreme example (but I have seen many others alike)
(17979586)


It's so amazing...

(http://buzzerbeaterfrance.forumpro.fr/) ..... Une inscription, une présentation et les ressources de la communauté sont ouvertes..Déja plus de 900 Joueurs inscrits!
This Post:
00
125704.48 in reply to 125704.46
Date: 12/31/2009 07:46:10
Overall Posts Rated:
129129
I know you'll hate me for that,but a .111 3pt% PG isn't really great,is he?

I want what all men want...I just want it more.
This Post:
00
125704.49 in reply to 125704.48
Date: 12/31/2009 07:47:59
Overall Posts Rated:
224224
I know you'll hate me for that,but a .111 3pt% PG isn't really great,is he?

What' he's still above .100? I am suprised.

I am more concerned with the free throw shooting anyhow. You don't _have_ to shoot three pointers -- but you gotta make free throws.

That comment was tongue-in-cheek anyhow

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
125704.50 in reply to 125704.34
Date: 12/31/2009 09:15:19
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
Oh it's you, I missed that hahaha.

This Post:
00
125704.51 in reply to 125704.40
Date: 12/31/2009 09:17:15
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
Below 10 shots a game is very hard, I agree.

My starting PG however, manages to get <10 this season.

Ain Nurm (7366832)

I'm still not satisfied with my starting SG and backup SG/PG, but I've got to say, they both got 13+ jump shot and driving, which is way to high if you ask me.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 12/31/2009 09:18:44

This Post:
00
125704.52 in reply to 125704.51
Date: 12/31/2009 13:36:05
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
Another great example here that was brought up in another thread, this time the flow for the LI was better than the flow for the motion: (17803327).

As for the comment that we should have more balanced inside players, I have two comments to that:

1) There is no feedback in the current match ratings that would point to the need for inside players with better secondaries. Most people think that the match ratings mean something and train their players accordingly.

2) There is no possible way to train such inside players. Are you really going to train a guy earning $200,000 in salary at a position where he sucks? I even recently suggested in the Canadian off-site forum that a young player with great outside skills and sub-par inside skills should be trained as a C... Everyone else (besides me) thought that was a complete waste. But I really do not see another way to develop these multi-skilled inside players.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
125704.53 in reply to 125704.43
Date: 12/31/2009 13:59:18
Overall Posts Rated:
2323
Efficient yes.

But even while being maybe the 3rd option in Boston, he's still taking 200-300 more shots than Nash.

In his prime he was taking upwards to 500-800 more shots per season.

In terms of a shooter, I'll take .4 or .6 percent lower for an additional 6,000 points.

That's a career for most guys.

Last edited by Amarestars at 12/31/2009 14:01:41

This Post:
00
125704.54 in reply to 125704.12
Date: 12/31/2009 14:19:22
Overall Posts Rated:
2727
Yes, it common knowledge that the Team Ratings are inaccurate and useless, and the Matchup Ratings are way better to look at .


I could add that when you put good C in SF position and play look inside you can see drastic increase in team ratings, but not neccesaraly increase in team performance and if you put highly skilled PG or SG in SF position overall team doesn't increase so drasticly but team performance is.

Advertisement